• Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show full table of contents
2.2.3. Resultative constructions
quickinfo

This section provides an extensive discussion of the resultative construction. Our focus will be on the verb types that enter this construction. It will be shown that the absence or presence of an internal argument (theme) determines the resulting pattern. The examples in (191) show that if a verb lacks an internal argument, an additional argument functioning as the logical subject of the predicate must be introduced.

Example 191
a. Jan loopt (*het gras).
  Jan walks     the grass
b. Jan loopt *(het gras) plat.
  Jan walks     the grass  flat

If the verb already has an internal argument, this internal argument may but need not surface as the subject of the resultative predicate; the dollar sign indicates that under normal circumstances the use of the marked adjective would not be expected.

Example 192
a. Jan veegt de vloer/$bezem.
  Jan sweeps  the floor/broom
b. Jan veegt de vloer schoon/$kapot.
  Jan sweeps  the floor  clean/broken
b'. Jan veegt de bezem kapot/$schoon.
  Jan sweeps  the broom  broken/clean

Verbs with more than one internal argument do not seem to be possible in the resultative construction, but we will show that this may be due to independent reasons. The discussion in this section essentially adopts the analysis given in Hoekstra (1988). Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995:ch.2) provide a number of problems for this proposal based on English, which are, in turn, for a large part countered in Hoekstra (2004:399ff.). We also refer the reader to Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995) for a discussion of a number of semantic approaches to the resultative construction.

readmore
[+]  I.  Verbs without an internal argument

This subsection discusses resultative constructions based on main verbs without an internal argument, that is, the intransitive and impersonal verbs from Table 6. The addition of a complementive to such verbs requires that we also add an extra argument that will function as the subject of a complementive. In the case of impersonal verbs the non-referential subject pronoun het'it' must be dropped. The general pattern is therefore as given in (193).

Example 193
a. Intransitive verbs: NP V ⇒ NP V NP Predicate
b. Impersonal verbs: het V ⇒ NP V Predicate
[+]  A.  Intransitive verbs

Example (194) provides some cases of intransitive verbs with a complementive. The complementive can be adjectival or adpositional in nature. Despite the fact that the object is not an internal argument of the verb, which is clear from the fact that it is only licensed if the complementive is present, it is assigned accusative case by it. This is clear from the fact illustrated by the primed examples that passivization is possible.

Example 194
Adjectival and adpositional complementives
a. Jan huilde zijn ogen helemaal *(rood).
  Jan cried  his eyes  completely     red
a'. Zijn ogen zijn helemaal rood gehuild.
  his eyes  are  completely  red  cried
b. Jan blies de kruimels *(van de tafel af).
  Jan blew  the crumbs     from the table
b'. De kruimels werden van de tafel af geblazen.
  the crumbs  were  from the table  blown
  'The crumbs were blown from the table.'

In order to enter the construction, the accusative object should not only be able to be part of the set denoted by the complementive, but it should also be plausible that the activity denoted by the verb can have the expressed effect of changing the state this object is in. Although one can imagine that Jan causes his eyes to become red by performing the act of crying, it is much less plausible that he causes another person to become red by performing this activity. Other effects on another person may be conceivable, however, and this accounts for the contrast between the examples in (195a) and (195b).

Example 195
a. $ Jan huilde Marie helemaal rood.
  Jan cried  Marie completely  red
b. Jan huilde Marie helemaal nat.
  Jan cried  Marie completely  wet

      Particle verbs are often analyzed in a way similar to the resultative constructions in (194). Example (196), for instance, shows that the accusative object requires the particle to be present as well; if the particle is dropped, the object must be dropped as well. It should be noted, however, that it is often not obvious that the particle is predicated of the accusative object given that verb + particle collocations often have a non-compositional meaning. We refer the reader to Section P1.2.4, sub II for a more detailed discussion of this.

Example 196
Verbal particles
a. De menigte jouwde de spreker *(uit).
  the crowd  jeered  the speaker     prt.
  'The crowd jeered at the speaker.'
b. De hond blafte de postbode *(na).
  the dog  barked  the postman  after
c. Peter werkt de zaak verder *(af).
  Peter works  the case  further    prt.
  'Peter finishes the remainder of the case.'

Combinations that are more or lesss idiomatically fixed also occur in the case of APs and PPs. Some examples are given in (197) and (198).

Example 197
a. Zij praten die beslissing goed.
  they  talk  that decision  good
  'They justify that decision.'
b. De rechter spreekt de verdachte vrij.
  the judge  speaks  the suspect  free
  'The judge acquits the suspect.'
c. Zij zwegen die man dood.
  they  kept.silent  that man  dead
  'They ignored that man completely.'
Example 198
a. Jan werkte Peter [PP de kamer uit].
  Jan worked  Peter  the room  out.of
  'Jan got rid of Peter.'
b. Ze gooide hun geld [PP over de brug].
  they  threw  their money  over the bridge
  'They wasted their money.'

      Special are cases such as (199), in which the additional argument takes the form of a simplex reflexive pronoun that is interpreted co-referentially with the subject of the clause.

Example 199
a. Jan schreeuwt zich schor.
  Jan shouts  refl  hoarse
b. Jan werkt zich suf.
  Jan works  refl  dull

Although the examples in (199) can be taken literally (Jan is getting hoarse/dull as the result of the activity he is performing), they also allow an interpretation in which they mainly bring aboutan amplifying effect; example (199a) may express that Jan is shouting very loudly or for a long time, and (199b) that Jan is working very hard or even above his powers. Many cases exist that cannot readily be interpreted literally and whose function is thus limited to inducing this amplifying effect, and people are in fact continuously inventing new combinations; some more or lesss conventional examples are given in (200).

Example 200
a. Jan lacht zich rot/slap.
AP
  Jan laughs  refl  rotten/weak
  'Jan is laughing himself silly.'
b. Jan werkt zich te pletter/uit de naad.
PP
  Jan works  refl  to pieces/out of  the seam
  'Jan is working terribly hard.'

Example (201) suggests that it is possible in this amplifying reading to use a wide range of nominal phrases, which is normally impossible in resultative constructions; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub II.

Example 201
Hij lacht zich een aap/breuk/ongeluk/kriek.
  he  laughs  refl  monkey/fracture/accident/kriek
'He laughs himself silly.'

It seems doubtful, however, that we are dealing with nominal complementives in (201). Whereas the examples in (200) imply that the reflexive accusative object (and hence the subject of the clause) becomes part of the set denoted by the AP or PP (albeit that the property is more or lesss metaphorically construed), this is not the case in (201a); it is not claimed that the subject of the clause is becoming a monkey, a fracture, an accident or whatever kriek may denote, but rather that a monkey, fracture, an accident or a kriekcomes intoexistence as the result of performing the act of laughing; in this respect, (201) is just like the regular transitive construction Jan bouwde een huis, which expresses that the house is coming into existence as the result of performing the act of building. In short, the nominal construction in (201) resembles double object constructions like Marie sloeg Jan een blauw oog'Marie punched Jan and thus gave him a black eye', in which the noun phrase een blauw oog again does not function as a complementive but as a direct object that refers to an entity that comes into existence as the result of the activity denoted by the verb slaan'to hit'.
      Another structurally similar example, which lacks the amplification effect, is given in (202a). That the noun phrase een kasteel in this example does not function as a complementive but as a direct object is clear from the fact that the past/passive participle can at least marginally be used attributively in the (b)-example; Section 2.1.2, sub IIID, has shown that attributive use of past participles is only possible if the modified noun corresponds to the internal argument of the input verb of the participles. We will return to the use of the simplex reflexive in (201a) in Section 2.5.2, sub II.

Example 202
a. Peter droomde zich een kasteel.
  Peter dreamed  refl  a castle
b. ? het gedroomde kasteel
  the  dreamed  castle

Observe further that the double object construction in (201) should not be confused with those in (203). In these constructions the simplex reflexive zich functions as an inalienable possessor of the nominal complement and not as the subject of the predicatively used PP; cf. Section 3.3.1.4. These cases are therefore regular resultative constructions. Confusingly, these examples are also most naturally interpreted with an amplifying reading, but this also holds for the synonymous resultative construction in (203b'), which does not involve a reflexive possessor but a possessive personal pronoun.

Example 203
a. Hij lacht zich de tranen in de ogen.
  he  laughs  refl  the tears  in the eyes
  'He laughs like mad.'
b. Hij schreeuwde *(zich) de longen uit het lijf.
  he  shouted    refl  the lungs  out.of  the body
  'He shouted extremely loud.'
b'. Hij schreeuwde de longen uit zijn lijf.
  he  shouted  the lungs  out.of  his body
  'He shouted extremely loud.'

      We conclude this subsection with a brief discussion of motion verbs like lopen'to walk' and rennen'to run', subsection IIB3 will show that these verbs pattern like unaccusative verbs if they take a spatial complementive. Here we want to show, however, that they may also behave like regular intransitive verbs. The examples in (204a-c) show that the addition of a complementive requires the presence of an additional argument. Example (204c') shows that the PP can readily be replaced by a particle (provided that the object is inanimate).

Example 204
a. Jan loopt zijn schoenen *(kapot).
  Jan walks  his shoes     broken
b. Marie reed het kind *(dood).
  Marie drove  the child    dead
c. Jan reed Marie *(naar huis).
  Jan drove  Marie    to home
c'. Jan reed de auto/?Marie *(weg).
  Jan drove  the car/Marie     away

As in the case of the other intransitive verbs, the construction with a simplex reflexive can be used to amplify the activity denoted by the verb. Example (205a) is again ambiguous between a resultative and an amplifying reading, whereas (205b) is most naturally construed with an amplifying reading. For completeness' sake, (205c) provides an example of the non-resultative nominal construction of the type in (201).

Example 205
a. Jan rent zich suf/te pletter.
AP/PP
  Jan runs  refl  dull/to smithereens
b. Jan rent zich rot/uit de naad.
AP/PP
  Jan runs  refl  rotten/out of the seam
c. Jan loopt zich een ongeluk/het apelazarus.
  Jan walks  refl  an accident/the apelazarus
  'Jan walks his legs off.'

The examples in (206) are again resultative constructions in which the simplex reflexive acts as the inalienable possessor of the complement of the PP. These examples are again most naturally interpreted with an amplifying reading, but this also holds for the synonymous resultative constructions in the primed examples with a prenominal possessive pronoun.

Example 206
a. Jan loopt zich de benen uit het lijf.
  Jan walks  refl  the legs  out.of  the body
  'Jan is walking his legs off.'
a'. Jan loopt de benen uit zijn lijf.
  Jan walks  the legs  out.of  his body
b. Jan loopt zich het vuur uit de sloffen.
  Jan walks  refl  the fire  out.of his mules
  'Jan is wearing himself out.'
b'. Jan loopt het vuur uit zijn sloffen.
  Jan walks  the fire  out.of  his mules
[+]  B.  Impersonal (weather) verbs

Weather verbs typically occur with the non-referential subject pronoun het'it'; the primeless examples in (207) show that referential subjects like de jongen'the boy' or zijn vingers'his fingers' are normally excluded. The primed examples show, however, that a referential subject becomes possible if a complementive is added. The complementive can be either an adjectival or an adpositional phrase.

Example 207
a. Het/*De jongen regent.
  it/the boy  rains
a'. De jongen regent nat.
  the boy  rains  wet
b. Het vriest/*Zijn vingers vriezen.
  it freezes/his fingers  freeze
b'. Zijn vingers vriezen van zijn handen af.
  his fingers  freeze  from his hand  af

If weather verbs were regular intransitive verbs, the findings of Subsection A would lead us to expect that the logical subject of the complementive surfaces as an accusative noun phrase, as in (208). The ungrammaticality of these examples can therefore be taken as evidence in favor of the idea that the pronoun het is not an external argument of the weather verb but just an expletive filling the subject position.

Example 208
a. * Het regent de jongen nat.
  it  rains  the boy  wet
b. * Het vriest zijn vingers van zijn handen af.
  it  freezes  the fingers  from his hands  af

A potential objection to our claim that the pronoun het is not an external argument of the verb is that, as Subsection IIB3, will show, intransitive motion verbs alternate with unaccusative motion verbs; Jan heeft gewandeld'Jan has walked' versus Jan is naar Groningen gewandeld'Jan has walked to Groningen'. We may therefore be dealing with a similar alternation in (207). This possibility cannot be dismissed out of hand, but it should be pointed out that the verb frame alternation in question is normally restricted to motion verbs; the burden of proof therefore seems to be on those who would wish to claim that the weather verbs exhibit a similar alternation. Empirical evidence for this is, however, hard to find. Given that het is non-referential, it is clearly not agentive either, and this implies that the sufficient tests for claiming intransitive status for the weather verbs will fail for independent reasons: agentive er-nominalization is excluded (* regener'rain-er') because it requires the subject of the verb to be agentive, and the same thing holds for impersonal passivization (* Er wordt geregend).
      That the resultative constructions in the primed examples in (207) are unaccusative and consequently involve a DO-subject is clear from the following facts: (i) the verbs take the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense (whereas they take hebben if no complementive is present), (ii) the construction does not allow impersonal passivization, and (iii) the past participle can be used attributively to modify a noun corresponding to the subject of the corresponding clause. This is illustrated in (209) for example (207a').

Example 209
a. De jongen is/*heeft nat geregend.
cf. Het heeft/*is geregend
  the boy  is/has  wet  rained
b. * Er wordt door de jongen nat geregend.
  there is  by the boy  wet  rained
b'. de nat geregende jongen
  the  wet  rained  boy

We can safely conclude from this that it is safe to conclude that in the primed examples in (207) the subject of the complementive has been moved into the subject position of the clause, and thus voids the need of to insert the expletive het. This is schematically represented in (210).

Example 210
a. ____ regent ⇒ Het regent
het insertion
  rains  it  rains
b. ____ regent [de jongen nat] ⇒ De jongeni regent [ti nat]
movement
  rains   the boy  wet  the boy  rains wet

      Since the pronoun het is not referential, it cannot be the antecedent of the simplex reflexive zich; example (211a) shows that as a result, the amplifying reflexive construction is not possible. The (b)-examples show that this construction is not possible with a DO-subject either but this is for different reasons. Example (211b) is unacceptable because the noun phrase Jan is not licensed; it neither functions as an argument of the verb nor as an argument of the complementive (which takes zich as its subject). And example (211b'), in which Jan and zich could in principle be licensed as subjects of, respectively, suf'dull' and nat'wet', is ungrammatical because a clause may contain one complementive at the most; see Section 2.2.1, sub IV.

Example 211
a. * Het regent zich suf/te pletter.
  it  rains  refl  dull/to smithereens
b. * Jan regent zich suf/te pletter.
  Jan  rains  refl  dull/to smithereens
b'. * Jan regent zich suf nat.
  Jan  rains  refl  dull  wet

For completeness' sake, we want to mention the resultative construction in (212a). This example is exceptional in that the verb vriezen'to freeze' seems to take an external (agentive) subject; this suggestion is confirmed by the fact that passivization, as in (212b), is possible. Given that the subject pronoun ze'they' in (212a) functions as an external argument, we correctly predict that this example must contain an additional accusative argument that functions as the subject of the complementive.

Example 212
a. In deze fabriek vriezen ze groente droog.
  in this factory  freeze  they  vegetables  dry
  'In this factory, they are freeze-drying vegetables.'
b. In deze fabriek wordt groente droog gevroren.
  in this factory  is  vegetables  dry  freeze
[+]  II.  Verbs with one internal argument

This subsection discusses resultative constructions with verbs that normally take an internal argument, that is, the transitive and monadic unaccusative verbs in Table 6 from Section 2.1.6. In contrast to what is the case with verbs without an internal argument, the addition of a complementive does not have the result that an additional noun phrase is added; see Levin & Rappaport Hovav (1995: Section 2.1). The subject of the complementive often corresponds to the internal argument of the transitive verb but this is not necessarily the case. The general pattern is therefore as given in (213), in which the indexes on the NPs indicate that the subject of the complementive can be either identical to the one that we find in the non-resultative construction or different.

Example 213
a. transitive verbs: NP V NPi ⇒ NP V NPi/j Predicate
b. unaccusative verbs: NPi V ⇒ NPi/j V Predicate

The fact that the noun phrase that the complementive is predicated of may but need not correspond to the internal argument of the main verb raises the question as to what the relation between the verb and that noun phrase is.

[+]  A.  Transitive verbs

This subsection discusses resultative constructions based on transitive verbs. We will begin by showing that the verbs entering this construction cannot denote achievements, subsections 2 to 4 will investigate the relation between the verb and the direct object in more detail and will show that despite the fact that the verb assigns accusative case to the object, the latter cannot be considered an argument of the former: the object is semantically selected by the complementive. We conclude with a discussion of resultative constructions in which the object has the form of a simplex reflexive and a number of other more special cases.

[+]  1.  The verb cannot be an accomplishment

Transitive verbs may enter the resultative construction if they denote an activity, as in (214), but not if they denote an accomplishment, as in (215). This contrast is due to the fact that complementives introduce a unique point of termination of the event, namely, the point at which the object reaches the state denoted by the complementive. Since activities and accomplishments differ by definition with respect to whether they inherently express such a point of termination, the contrast between (214) and (215) can be accounted for by assuming that complementives can only be added if the verb itself does not inherently express a point of termination, that is, if the verb denotes an activity.

Example 214
Activities
a. De soldaten bombarderen de stad (plat).
  the soldiers bomb  the city   flat
b. Marie sloeg de hond (dood).
  Marie beat  the dog   dead
c. Jan verft zijn haar (zwart).
  Jan dyes  his hair   black
Example 215
Accomplishments
a. De soldaten vernietigen de stad (*plat).
  the soldiers  destroy  the city     flat
b. De illusionist hypnotiseert de vrijwilliger (*stil).
  the magician  hypnotizes  the volunteer   silent

The generalization that accomplishment verbs cannot occur in resultative constructions can be unified with our earlier generalization in Section 2.2.1, sub IV, that clauses cannot contain more than one complementive by adopting the following natural assumption: clauses include at most one point of termination of the event.

[+]  2.  The accusative object is not an argument of the verb

This subsection argues that the accusative object of the resultative construction is not an argument of the verb, but of the complementive. That this is not at all evident will be clear from the examples in (216) and (217). The examples in (216) show that transitive verbs like malen'to grind', prakken'to mash' and vegen'to sweep' select a direct object that denotes the theme of the activity; if the direct object refers to, e.g., an instrument that is used in performing the activity, the examples become unacceptable.

Example 216
a. Jan maalt het meelTheme/*de molensteenInstrument.
  Jan grinds  the flour/the millstone
b. Jan prakt zijn aardappelsTheme/*zijn vorkInstrument.
  Jan mashes  his potatoes/his fork
c. Jan veegt de vloerTheme/*de bezemInstrument.
  Jan sweeps  the floor/the broom

The same restriction holds for the resultative constructions in (217). Note that the judgments only hold for the interpretations indicated by the subscripts; each of the noun phrases marked by an asterisk can also be interpreted as a theme, which gives rise to a marked result in (216a&b) for reasons related to our knowledge of the world but which is easily possible in (216c).

Example 217
a. Jan maalt het meelTheme/*de molensteenInstrument fijn.
  Jan grinds  the flour/the millstone  fine
b. Jan prakt zijn aardappelsTheme/*zijn vorkInstrument door de groente.
  Jan mashes  his potatoes/his fork  through the vegetables
c. Jan veegt de vloerTheme/*de bezemInstrument schoon.
  Jan sweeps  the floor/the broom  clean

The correspondence between the examples in (216) and (217) thus seems to suggest that the verb also imposes semantic selection restrictions on the accusative noun phrase that functions as the subject of the complementive. This hypothesis is refuted, however, by the examples in (218), in which the accusative object corresponds to the instrument rather than the theme of the verb; this will be clear from the fact that the acceptability judgments on these examples are reversed if the complementive is omitted; cf. (216).

Example 218
a. Jan maalt de molensteen/*het meel kapot.
  Jan grinds  the millstone/the flour  broken
b. Jan prakt zijn vork/*zijn aardappels krom.
  Jan mashes  his fork/his potatoes  crooked
c. Jan veegt de bezem/?de vloer aan flarden.
  Jan sweeps  the broom/the floor in rags

The data in (218) strongly suggest that it is just the complementive that imposes selection restrictions on the accusative object. Note that as a result it is sometimes not easy to determine whether the resultative construction is based on a transitive verb. This holds especially if the transitive verb can be used as a pseudo-intransitive verb like eten'to eat' or roken'to smoke'. The primeless examples in (219) are acceptable both with and without the direct object, and as a result we may claim either that the accusative noun phrase replaces the internal argument of the transitive verb or is added to the pseudo-intransitive verb.

Example 219
a. Jan eet (brood).
  Jan eats   bread
a'. Jan eet zijn ouders arm.
  Jan eats  his parents  poor
b. Jan rookt (sigaretten).
  Jan smokes  cigarettes
b'. Jan rookt zijn longen zwart.
  Jan smokes  his lungs  black
[+]  3.  The role of our knowledge of the world

Since the referents of the instruments in (217) normally cannot be assigned the properties denoted by the complementives as a result of the activity denoted by the verb, these examples are semantically deviant. Since the properties denoted by the complementives in (218) are not applicable to the referents of the theme arguments, the latter cannot be used for the same reason. But since the instruments can have these properties, and since it is plausible that they get these properties by being used as an instrument for the activity denoted by the verb, they give rise to a fully acceptable result. This shows that our acceptability judgments on the examples in (217) and (218) depend not only on argument selection but also on our knowledge of the world; see Subsection IA, where we reached the same conclusion on the basis of the examples in (220), which likewise show that the activity denoted by the verb must be able to affect the object such that it will get the property denoted by the adjective.

Example 220
a. $ Jan huilde Marie helemaal rood.
  Jan cried  Marie completely  red
b. Jan huilde Marie helemaal nat.
  Jan cried  Marie completely  wet

      That knowledge of the world may be involved is also clear from the fact that the subject of the complementive may have other semantic functions than theme or instrument. We illustrate this by means of the examples in (221) and (222). The examples in (221) provide cases in which the subjects of the complementives correspond to the theme of the verb (the thing being cleaned).

Example 221
a. Peter wast zijn handen schoon.
  Peter washes his hands clean
  'Peter washes his hands clean.'
b. Peter veegt de vloer schoon.
  Peter sweeps  the floor  clean

The examples in (222), however, are cases in which the noun phrase corresponding to the theme of the verb appears as part of a prepositional complementive and the subject of that complementive corresponds to something that is located on the object that is being cleaned. Since the relation between the direct object and the verb is indirect, defined in terms of the noun phrase that corresponds to the internal argument of the verb, it seems implausible that this relation can be defined in terms of selection restrictions directly imposed by the verb.

Example 222
a. Peter wast de verf van zijn handen.
  Peter washes  the paint  from his hands
b. Peter veegt het stof van de vloer.
  Peter wipes  the dust  from the floor

      Example (223) provides another case that shows that knowledge of the world may be involved in our acceptability judgments. Example (223a) shows that the verb slaan'to beat' may take an animate noun phrase like Jan as its direct object, whereas an inanimate noun phrase like de tanden gives rise to a pragmatically odd result. In the resultative construction in (223b), however, the noun phrase de tanden gives rise to a fully grammatical result, whereas the noun phrase Jan cannot be used since this would again give rise to an implausible interpretation.

Example 223
a. Peter sloeg Jan/*de tanden.
  Peter beat  Jan/the teeth
b. Peter sloeg de tanden/$Jan uit zijn mond.
  Peter beat  the teeth/Jan  out.of  his mouth

For completeness' sake, note that it is possible to say Peter sloeg Jan de tanden uit de mond, but in this example Jan does not function as the subject of the predicatively used PP, but as the dative possessor of the nominal complement of this PP: "Peter hit the teeth out of Jan's mouth".

[+]  4.  Case assignment

Although Subsection 2 has shown that accusative objects of resultative constructions do not function as internal arguments of the transitive verbs heading these constructions, but as subjects of the complementives, they are assigned accusative case by the verbs. This is clear from the fact that they become the subjects of the clause if the verbs are passivized.

Example 224
a. De stad wordt (door de soldaten) plat gebombardeerd.
  the city  is   by the soldiers  flat  bombed
b. De hond wordt (door Marie) dood geslagen.
  the dog  is   by Marie  dead  beaten
c. Zijn haar wordt (door Jan) zwart geverfd.
  his hair  is   by Jan  black  dyed
[+]  5.  Resultative constructions with the weak (simplex) reflexive zich

As in the case of intransitive verbs, the simplex reflexive zich may occur as the subject of the complementive, and again the resulting construction can often be interpreted in such a way that the resultative has an amplifying effect. First consider the examples in (225), which are most naturally understood in a literal way; the referent of the reflexive (and hence of the subject of the clause) is understood as becoming part of the set denoted by the complementive as a result of the activity denoted by the verb. Interestingly, the theme argument of the transitive verb can often be optionally expressed by means of an additional PP, provided that the simplex reflexive is not construed as the theme itself. In (225a), the reflexive is not only the subject of the complementive, but is also understood as the theme of the activity, and hence the addition of the theme-PP gives rise to an unacceptable result; the number sign indicates that the PP can only be used as an adverbial phrase of place. In (225b), on the other hand, the simplex reflexive is not understood as the theme of the event and the addition of the PP aan die taartjes'on those cakes' is fully acceptable.

Example 225
a. Peter veegt zich schoon (#op die vloerTheme).
  Peter wipes  refl  clean   on that floor
b. Jan eet zich vol (aan die taartjesTheme).
  Jan eats  refl  full   on those cakes

The examples in (226) are most naturally interpreted as involving amplification, and it is interesting to note that in such examples the theme argument can always be expressed by means of an additional PP.

Example 226
a. Peter veegt zich suf/te pletter (op die vloerTheme).
  Peter sweeps  refl  dull/to smithereens   on that floor
b. Jan eet zich suf /te pletter (aan die taartjesTheme).
  Jan eats  refl  dull/to smithereens   on those cakes

For completeness' sake, we also give examples of the non-resultative reflexive nominal construction in (227); in cases like these the theme argument of the verb can also be expressed by means of a PP.

Example 227
a. Peter veegt zich het apelazarus (op die vloerTheme).
  Peter sweeps  refl  the apelazarus   on that floor
  'Peter rinses/wipes himself to blazes.'
b. Jan eet zich een ongeluk (aan die taartjesTheme).
  Jan eats  refl  an accident   on these cakes
[+]  6.  Three special cases

We conclude this subsection by discussing three special cases of the resultative construction. First consider the examples in (228), which show that the accusative object is obligatory; omission of the objects from examples such as (214) normally leads to ungrammaticality. This is, of course, to be expected given that the complementive must be predicated of some noun phrase and the external argument of the verb is not a suitable candidate for that.

Example 228
a. De soldaten bombarderen *(de stad) plat.
  the soldiers  bomb     the city  flat
b. Marie sloeg *(de hond) dood.
  Marie beat     the dog  dead
c. Jan verft *(zijn haar) zwart.
  Jan dyes     his hair  black

There are, however, some exceptional constructions in which the accusative object can be dropped: example (229a) is a fixed expression, in which the implied object is interpreted generically, and example (229b) is an advertisement slogan for a washing powder, in which the implied object is contextually determined and refers to the laundry. The fact that the object is semantically implied is apparently sufficient to license the presence of the complementive in these cases.

Example 229
a. Geld maakt niet gelukkig.
  money  makes  not  happy
  'Money doesnʼt make one happy.'
b. Omo wast door en door schoon.
  Omo washes  through and through  clean
  'Omo washes your laundry thoroughly clean.'

      The second special case involves verbs that seem to shift their meaning in the resultative construction. A typical example is the verb maken'to make' in (230). In the transitive construction in (230a) it means "to repair", or is interpreted as a verb of creation meaning "to make". In the resultative construction in (230b), on the other hand, this meaning has bleached and what remains is just a causative interpretation; the example expresses that Jan is performing some unspecified activity that causes the chair to break.

Example 230
a. Jan maakt de stoel.
  Jan makes/repairs  the chair
  'Jan is making/repairing the chair.'
b. Jan maakt de stoel kapot.
  Jan makes  the chair  broken
  'Jan is destroying the chair.'

An alternative for assuming a meaning shift would be to claim that the repair reading in (230a) arises as the result of a phonetically empty resultative comparable to heel'unbroken' in (231a). Such a proposal would imply that makenis a "light" verb in the sense that it has little or no meaning; perhaps this could be supported by the fact illustrated in (231b) that the emphatic construction involving the simplex reflexive zich does not give rise to an acceptable result with this verb.

Example 231
a. Jan maakt de stoel heel.
  Jan  makes  the chair  whole
  'Jan is repairing the chair.'
b. * Hij maakt zich suf/te pletter.
  he  makes  refl  dull/to smithereens

The same thing is suggested by examples such as (232), in which the meaning contribution of maken seems to be restricted to simple causation: the actual action that has the indicated result must be expressed by other syntactic means, like the use of the instrumental PP in (232a), or is left implicit, as in (232b).

Example 232
a. Jan maakt Peter met die opmerking belachelijk.
  Jan makes  Peter with that remark  ridiculous
  'Jan is making Peter ridiculous with that remark.'
b. Jan maakt het uit met Marie.
  Jan makes  it  off  with Marie
  'Jan is breaking off his engagement with Marie.'

      Thethird special case involvesverbs that may take a non-factive propositional clause as their complement, such as wensen'to wish' and verklaren'to declare' in (233). As is shown in (234), the same verbs can also be used with a complementive.

Example 233
a. Jan wenste dat zijn baas dood was.
  Jan wished  that  his boss  dead  was
  'Jan wished that his boss would be dead.'
a'. Jan wenste dat hij in het graf lag.
  Jan wished that  he  in the grave  lay
  'Jan wished that he would be in the grave.'
b. De arts verklaarde dat de patiënt dood was.
  the doctor  declared  that  the patient  dead  was
Example 234
a. Jan wenste zijn baas dood.
  Jan wished his boss  dead
a'. Jan wenste hem in het graf.
  Jan wished  him in the grave
b. De dokter verklaarde de patiënt dood.
  the doctor  declared  the patient  dead

Semantically, the (a)-examples in (233) seem more or lesss equivalent to the corresponding example in (234) as they both express unrealized wishes. The (b)-examples, on the other hand, differ slightly: in (233) the doctor declares that (to the best of his knowledge) the patient was dead, whereas in (234b) the doctor performs an act as the result of which the patient will be considered dead for legal purposes.

[+]  B.  Unaccusative verbs

This subsection addresses resultative constructions with unaccusative verbs, subsection 1 starts by discussing unaccusative verbs taking the perfect auxiliary zijn, and establishes a number of basic properties of the resultative construction headed by unaccusative verbs, subsection 2 continues with a discussion of unaccusative verbs taking the auxiliary hebben, subsection 3 concludes with a discussion of the unaccusative use of motion verbs like wandelen'to walk'.

[+]  1.  Unaccusative verbs selecting zijn

Subsection II has shown that transitive verbs denoting an activity may enter the resultative construction, but that this is not possible for transitive verbs denoting an accomplishment. We repeat two examples illustrating this in (235).

Example 235
a. De soldaten bombarderen de stad (plat).
activity
  the soldiers bomb  the city   flat
b. De soldaten vernietigen de stad (*plat).
accomplishment
  the soldiers  destroy  the city   flat

We claimed earlier that this is due to the fact that the addition of a complementive in effect changes an activity into an accomplishment by adding a unique point of termination of the event. We will show below that something similar holds for unaccusative verbs: the addition of a resultative is excluded if the verb is telic, that is, if it has some inherent point of termination. The examples in (236) show that if an unaccusative verb is non-telic, that is, denotes a process without an inherent point of termination, the addition of a resultative is easily possible: (236a) expresses that the vase broke as a result of its fall; (236b) expresses that the tree has crossed the fence as the result of the process of growing; (236c), finally, expresses that the vase came into pieces as the result of the process of cracking.

Example 236
Unaccusative verbs denoting an unbounded process
a. De vaas viel (kapot).
  the vase  fell   broken
b. De boom groeide (over de schutting heen).
  the tree  grew   over the fence
c. De vaas barstte (in stukken).
  the vase  cracked   into pieces

The examples in (237), on the other hand, show that if an unaccusative verb is telic, that is, denotes a process with an inherent point of termination, the addition of a complementive is impossible. Example (237a), for instance, does not express that the vase became broken as the result of arriving; the adjective instead acts as a supplementive expressing that the vase was broken on its arrival. Similarly, (237b) does not express that the state of being in his bed is the result of the old man's dying, but that the bed is simply the place where the process of dying took place. Example (237c), finally, shows that a process that takes place momentaneously cannot readily be combined with a resultative either.

Example 237
Unaccusative verbs denoting a bounded process
a. De vaas arriveerde (#kapot).
  the vase arrived    broken
b. De oude man stierf (#in zijn bed).
  the old man  died    in his bed
c. De bom explodeerde (*?in stukken).
  the bomb  exploded     in pieces

      Although the subject of the resultative construction is semantically licensed as the logical subject of the complementive, it often corresponds to the internal argument of the unaccusative verb, which is clear from the fact that the complementive is optional in (236); in De vaas viel'The vase fell' the subject of the clause can only be semantically licensed by the verb vallen'to fall'. However, there are also examples in which there is no semantic relation between the unaccusative verb and the subject of the clause. Some examples are given in (238). Example (238a) does not express that the path is growing, which is also clear from the fact that the resultative cannot be left out, but that the plants at the border are growing over the path, so that it is no longer accessible. Similarly, example (238b) does not imply that the ditch is undergoing some process that could be denoted by slibben as this verb does not occur without a complementive.

Example 238
a. Het paadje groeit *(dicht).
  the path  grows    shut
b. De sloot slibt *(dicht).
  the ditch  silts    shut
  'The ditch silts up.'

Because the noun phrases in (236) are semantically compatible with both the verbs and the complementives, whereas in (238) they are compatible with the complementives only, we may conclude that the relation between the noun phrases and the complementives is more important than the relation between the noun phrases and the verbs. The simplest conclusion we can draw from this is that the noun phrase is selected by (is an argument of) the complementive only; the semantic restrictions seemingly imposed by the verbs on the nominal arguments in (236) are secondary in nature and based on our knowledge of the world.
      The examples in (239) show that the emphatic resultative construction with zich is excluded with unaccusative verbs. The ungrammaticality of these examples is surprising from a semantic point of view, since in principle both arguments could be semantically licensed: the simplex reflexive zich could be semantically licensed as the subject of the complementive, and the subject of the clause as the internal argument of the unaccusative verb. It therefore seems that the ungrammaticality of these examples is due to the fact that the verb, being unaccusative, cannot assign accusative case to the simplex reflexive.

Example 239
a. * De oude man sterft zich suf/te pletter.
  the old man  dies  refl  dull/to pieces
b. * De gasten arriveren zich suf/te pletter.
  the guests  arrive  refl  dull/to pieces

This account of the examples in (239) also predicts the ungrammaticality of the examples in (240). The addition of a complementive is not sufficient to license an additional argument given that this argument cannot be case-marked. The difference between unaccusative and intransitive verbs, which do license an additional argument in the resultative construction (cf. the examples in (194), (199) and (200)) is thus reduced to the independently motivated difference in case assignment properties of these verbs: intransitive verbs are able to assign accusative case and can thus case-license an additional argument, but unaccusative verbs are not.

Example 240
a. * Jan valt zich/zichzelf/zijn vriend/hem dood.
  Jan  falls  refl/himself/his friend/him  dead
b. * De struiken groeien het paadje dicht.
  the bushes  grow  the path  shut

      For completeness' sake, note that the examples in (241) are not problematic for this analysis as the object is not an accusative object that functions as the subject of the complementive (the subject of the clause performs this function), but a dative object that acts as the inalienable possessor of the nominal complement of the preposition boven.

Example 241
a. Peter groeit zijn moeder boven het hoofd.
  Peter grows  his mother  over the head
  'Peter outgrows his mother.'
b. Het werk groeit hem boven het hoofd.
  the work  grows  him  over the head
  'He canʼt cope with his work.'

A more serious problem for assuming a general ban on unaccusatives in resultative constructions is the unaccusative verb schrikken in the (a)-examples of (242), in which the subject of the clause seems to function not as a theme but as an experiencer. Perhaps this emphatic construction is interpreted in analogy with the inherently reflexive psych-verb zich ergeren'to be annoyed' in the (b)-examples, which is more extensively discussed in Section 2.5.1.3, sub IV. We leave this as a topic for future research.

Example 242
a. Hij schrok (*zich).
  he  was.frightened  refl
a'. Hij schrok zich lam/te pletter.
  he  was.frightened  refl  paralyzed/in pieces
  'He was frightened to death.'
b. Hij ergert *(zich).
  he  is.annoyed  refl
b'. Hij ergert zich dood/te pletter.
  he  is.annoyed  refl  dead/to pieces
  'He was extremely annoyed.'
[+]  2.  Unaccusative verbs selecting hebben

Subsection 1 has discussed unaccusative verbs taking the auxiliary zijn in the perfect tense. This subsection discusses unaccusative verbs that normally take the auxiliary hebben. Example (243) shows that these verbs may enter the resultative construction, and then take the auxiliary zijn, which is due to the fact that the resultative adds a point of termination to these otherwise atelic, hence durative verbs; see the discussion in Section 2.1.2, sub III.

Example 243
a. De band heeft/*is gedreven.
  the tire  has/is  floated
a'. De band is/*heeft naar de overkant gedreven.
  the tire  is/has  to the opposite side  floated
b. Jan heeft/*is gebloed.
  Jan has/is bled
b'. Jan is/*heeft dood gebloed.
  Jan is/has  dead  bled

The subject of the clause need not necessarily satisfy the selection restrictions of the unaccusative verb. This is illustrated in (244): whereas (244a) with the noun phrase de pan is normally unacceptable (unless a toto pro pars reading is intended, that is, unless de pan refers to the content of the pan), example (244b) is perfect with this noun phrase.

Example 244
a. Het water/??de pan kookt.
  the water/the pan  boils
b. De pan/*het water kookt droog.
  the pan/the water  boils  dry

      The examples in (245) show that, as in the case of the unaccusative verbs with zijn, but unlike in the case of the intransitive verbs, the addition of a complementive does not license the addition of a second argument. This is a strong argument in favor of assuming unaccusative status for these verbs: if drijven and bloeden were intransitive, they should be able to assign accusative case to the subject of the complementive in (245), which wrongly predicts the examples in (245) to be grammatical; see the discussion in Subsection IA.

Example 245
Unaccusative verbs
a. * De band dreef het kind naar de overkant.
  the tire  floated  the child  to the opposite side
b. * De patiënt bloedt de wond schoon.
  the patient  bleeds  the wound  clean

Example (246) in fact shows that intransitive verbs like lachen'to laugh' display the opposite behavior: if a complementive is added a second argument is also obligatorily added.

Example 246
Intransitive verbs
a. Jan lachte *(Peter) de kamer uit.
  Jan laughed     Peter  the room  out.of
b. * Jan huilde *(Maries schouder) nat.
  Jan laughs     Marieʼs shoulder  wet

      The lack of unaccusative case also accounts for the impossibility of emphatic resultative constructions with zich in (247). We give examples with +animate arguments in case some kind of animacy restriction is involved; compare the contrast between Jan beweegt (zich)'Jan moves' and het gordijn beweegt (*zich)'the curtain moves'.

Example 247
a. * Jan drijft zich suf/te pletter.
  Jan floats  refl  dull/to pieces
b. * De patiënt bloedt zich suf/te pletter.
  the patient bleeds  refl  dull/to pieces

      A very large class of verbs that probably belong to the unaccusative type under discussion is constituted by the non-agentiveverbs of sound emission; examples are zoemen'to buzz' and ruizen'to rustle' in (248), which typically take an inanimate argument.

Example 248
a. De lift heeft/*is gezoemd (bij het opstijgen).
  the elevator  has/is  buzzed  during the ascension
  'When the elevator went up, it buzzed.'
b. De jurk heeft/*is voortdurend geruist (bij het lopen).
  the dress  has/is  continuously  rustled  with the walking
  'When you walk, the dress rustles.'

The addition of a complementive is possible, but this often has the side effect that the verb is no longer solely interpreted as a verb of sound emission, but also as a verb of motion. The state denoted by the complementive is not the result of the emission of the sound but of the movement that causes the sound. Observe that the subjects in the primed examples are not the entities that are making the sounds, so we again have evidence that it is the complementive and not the verb that semantically licenses the subject. Note that the auxiliary is zijn in these examples.

Example 249
a. De lift is/*heeft naar de dertigste verdieping gezoemd.
  the elevator  is/has  to the thirtieth floor  buzzed
a'. Jan is/*heeft naar de dertigste verdieping gezoemd.
cf. ?? Jan zoemt
  Jan is/has  to the thirtieth floor  buzzed
b. De jurk is/*heeft open geruist.
  the dress  is/has  open  rustled
b'. Marie ruiste van de trap af.
cf. ?? Marie ruist
  Marie rustled  from the chairs

If verbs of sound emission are indeed unaccusative, we correctly predict that the addition of a complementive cannot license the additional argument in (250).

Example 250
a. * De lift zoemt Jan naar de dertigste verdieping.
  the elevator  buzzes  Jan to the thirtieth floor
b. * De jurk ruiste Marie van de trap af.
  the dress  rustled  Marie  from the stairs

The emphatic resultative construction with zich in (251) is also excluded, but this may be accidental given that the subject of the clause is -animate; see the discussion above (247).

Example 251
a. * De lift zoemt zich suf/te pletter.
  the elevator  buzzes  refl  dull/to smithereens
b. * De jurk ruist zich suf/te pletter.
  the dress  rustles  refl  dull/to smithereens
[+]  3.  Motion verbs

This subsection discusses motion verbs. This is perhaps surprising given that the unaccusativity tests discussed in Section 2.1.2 show that these verbs normally act as intransitive verbs, which is shown in (252) for the verb wandelen'to walk'. The fact that wandelen takes the auxiliary hebben'to have' in the perfect-tense example in (252b) is of course not sufficient for assuming that it is intransitive, and the same thing holds for the fact illustrated in (252d) that the past/passive participle cannot be used attributively. However, the fact that the verb is used as the input for an agentive er-noun in (252c) and allows the impersonal passivization in (252e) unambiguously shows that we are dealing with an intransitive verb.

Example 252
a. De jongen wandelt.
  the boy  walks
d. * de gewandelde jongen
  the walked boy
b. De jongen heeft/*is gewandeld.
  the boy  has/is  walked
e. Er wordt gewandeld.
  there  is  walked
c. een wandelaar
  a walker

      The behavior of wandelen changes drastically, however, if a predicatively used directional PP is added, as in (253). As a result of the addition of the complementive, the verb selects the auxiliary zijn and the past participle can be used attributively (provided that the adpositional phrase is expressed as well), which are both sufficient for concluding that we are dealing with an unaccusative verb. Further, the agentive er-noun cannot readily be combined with the adpositional phrase; the percentage sign indicates that speakers' judgments vary from marginally acceptable to entirely excluded. Passivization. finally, also gives rise to a degraded result if the adpositional phrase is present. From this we may conclude that the addition of a complementive changes the status of the verb: without it, the verb behaves as an intransitive verb, but with it, it has the characteristics of an unaccusative verb.

Example 253
a. De jongen wandelt naar Groningen.
  the boy  walks  to Groningen
b. De jongen is/*heeft naar Groningen gewandeld.
  the boy  is/has  to Groningen  walked
c. % een wandelaar naar Groningen
  a walker  to Groningen
d. de naar Groningen gewandelde jongen
  the  to Groningen  walked  boy
e. ? Er wordt naar Groningen gewandeld.
  there  is  to Groningen  walked

Note that this change is not just due to the mere addition of an adpositional phrase, but crucially involves its syntactic function. If the adpositional phrase functions as a locational adverbial phrase, as in (254), the motion verb continues to act as a well-behaved intransitive verb.

Example 254
a. De jongen wandelt op de hei.
  the boy  walks  on the moor
b. De jongen heeft/*is op de hei gewandeld.
  the boy  has/is  on the moor  walked
c. een wandelaar op de hei
  walker  on the moor
d. * de op de hei gewandelde jongen
  the  on the moor  walked  boy
e. Er wordt op de hei gewandeld.
  there  is  on the moor  walked

      The examples in (255) are of a somewhat special nature. Example (255a) shows that the subject of the clause need not satisfy the selection restrictions of the verb if a complementive is present. This is, of course, expected given that the examples in (255b&c) unambiguously show that vliegen functions as an unaccusative verb. The examples in (255) are, however, not resultative in the sense that the state expressed by the complementive is the result of the process denoted by the verb; the verb is semantically bleached and the construction as a whole is aspectual in nature in that it simply expresses that the change of state takes place quickly (perhaps even instantaneously).

Example 255
a. Het huis vliegt *(in brand).
  the house  flies     into fire
  'The house burst into flames.'
b. Het huis is in brand gevlogen.
  the house  has  into fire  flown
c. het in brand gevlogen huis
  the  into fire  flown  house

Semantic bleaching is more common in examples of this type. The examples in (256) and (257) show again that the subject of the clause need not satisfy the selection restrictions of the verb if a complementive is present. The verbs in these constructions, which are again not resultative in nature, have radically changed their meaning; ten einde lopen in (256a) is an aspectual verb with a meaning comparable to English intransitive to terminate, and lopen in (257a) means something like English intransitive to extend. We added the (b)- and (c)-examples in order to show that lopen in (256) satisfies the sufficient conditions for assuming unaccusative status; lopen in (257) does not, but this is, of course, not surprising given that this construction is stative, hence atelic, in nature.

Example 256
a. De vergadering loopt *(ten einde).
  the meeting  walks     to an.end
  'The meeting draws to an end.'
b. De vergadering is/*heeft ten einde gelopen.
  the meeting  is/has to  to an.end  walked
c. De ten einde gelopen vergadering.
  the  to an.end  walked  meeting
Example 257
a. Het pad loopt *(dood/naar de vijver).
  the path  walks    dead/to the pond
  'The path has a dead end/goes to the pond.'
b. Het pad heeft/*is altijd al dood/naar de vijver gelopen.
  the path  has/is  always  already  dead/to the pond  walked
c. * de dood/naar de pond gelopen weg
  the  dead/to the pond  walked  path

      Since motion verbs can be used both intransitively and unaccusatively, it is not easy to determine whether the emphatic resultative construction with zich is possible in the unaccusative construction. Example (258a) is acceptable but this is probably due to the fact that the verb is intransitive. Example (258b) is unacceptable but this need not be due to the unaccusative status of the verb; the example is also excluded because the clause contains two complementives.

Example 258
a. Jan loopt zich suf/te pletter.
  Jan walks  refl  dull/to pieces
b. * Jan loopt zich suf/te pletter naar Groningen.
  Jan walks  refl  dull/to pieces  to Groningen

To conclude this subsection, observe that the two literal (non-emphatic) reflexive resultative constructions in (259a) and (259b) are both acceptable with a +human subject. In the first case we are dealing with the intransitive verb vliegen, and, consequently, the subject of the clause is also interpreted as the agent of the activity denoted by the verb; Jan is navigating a crashing plane. In the latter case we are dealing with an unaccusative verb, which means that we are dealing with a process and that the subject of the clause is not (necessarily) interpreted as the agent of the clause; Jan may just be a passenger in a crashing plane. More can be said about the unaccusatively used motion verbs, but for this we refer the reader to Section P1.1.2.2.

Example 259
a. Jan vliegt zich te pletter.
  Jan  flies  refl  to pieces
b. Jan vliegt te pletter.
  Jan  flies  to pieces
[+]  C.  Unclear cases: verbs with an obligatory complementive

This subsection discusses verbs that are obligatorily accompanied by a complementive. In these cases, the status of the verb in isolation (transitive, intransitive or unaccusative) often cannot be immediately established.

[+]  1.  Verbs of (change of) location

It is sometimes not clear what the basic type of a verb occurring in a resultative construction is. This holds especially if the complementive is obligatory, as in resultative constructions with the change of location verbs leggen'to put', zetten'to put', and hangen'to hang' in (260). The primed examples illustrate the obligatoriness of the complementive, which has the form of a locational PP here, and thus show that we cannot decide whether we are dealing with a transitive or an intransitive verb.

Example 260
a. Marie zet het kind in de stoel.
  Marie puts  the child  into the chair
a'. * Marie zet (het kind)
b. Marie legt het kleed op de tafel.
  Marie puts  the cloth  onto the table
b'. * Marie legt (het kleed).
c. Jan hangt zijn jas in de kast.
  Jan hangs  his coat  into the wardrobe
c'. * Jan hangt (zijn jas).

To a lesser degree, the same thing holds for the (stative) verbs of location zitten'to sit', liggen'to lie', staan'to stand', and hangen'to hang'. If the subject of the clause is inanimate, as in (261), the locational PP is normally obligatory (unless the verb is given contrastive accent).

Example 261
a. De bal zit/ligt eindelijk *(in de kist).
  the ball  sits/lies  finally     in the box
b. De lamp staat eindelijk ??(in de hoek).
  the lamp  stands  finally     in the corner
c. Zijn jas hangt eindelijk ??(in de kast).
  his coat  hangs  finally     in the wardrobe

The examples in (262) show that the locational PP normally need not be expressed if the subject of the clause is animate, but the examples with and without the locational phrase differ in meaning: if the locational phrase is present the verb denotes the state of being in a specific location, whereas if the PP is absent the verb instead denotes the state of being in a specific posture.

Example 262
a. Jan zit/ligt eindelijk (op/in bed).
  Jan sits/lies  finally   on/in bed
b. Jan staat eindelijk (op zijn plaats).
  Jan stands  finally   at his place
c. Jan hangt rustig ??(uit het raam).
  Jan hangs  quietly     out of the window

By distinguishing the locational and the posture reading, we do not want to imply that the posture reading is completely absent if the PP is present. It has in fact been shown that this reading is even available in cases with inanimate subjects. This will become clear by considering the two examples in (263), which refer to different situations; example (263a) with liggen'to lie' expresses that the book is lying flat on the table, whereas (263b) expresses that the book is standing upright; cf. Van den Toorn (1975). The only thing we are claiming here is that the locational reading is the more salient one when the complementive PP is present.

Example 263
a. Het boek ligt op tafel.
  the book  lies  on the.table
b. Het boek staat op tafel.
  the book  stands  on the.table

      Given that a (change of) location verb does not occur without a locational PP, we cannot immediately decide what the status of the verb is. It should be noted, however, that the change of location verbs in the primeless examples in (264) seem to act like causative alternants of the verbs of location in the primed examples.

Example 264
a. Jan legt het boek in de kast.
  Jan puts  the book  in the bookcase
a'. Het boek ligt in de kast.
  the book  lies in the bookcase
b. Jan zet het boek in de kast.
  Jan puts  the book  in the bookcase
b'. Het boek staat in de kast.
  the book  stands  in the bookcase
c. Jan hangt zijn jas in de kast.
  Jan hangs  his coat  in the wardrobe
c'. Zijn jas hangt in de kast.
  his coat  hangs  in the wardrobe

This suggests that verbs of location are unaccusatives, since, as will be shown in Section 3.2.3, this causative alternation is typical of unaccusative verbs such as breken'to break', which can be used both unaccusatively (de vaas is gebroken'the vase has broken') and transitively (Jan heeft de vaas gebroken'Jan has broken the vase'). This is interesting since this implies that we are dealing with yet another class of unaccusative verbs that does not take zijn in the perfect tense, and that does not allow attributive use of the past participle.

Example 265
a. Het boek heeft/*is al die tijd in de kast gelegen.
  the book  has/is  all that time  in the bookcase  lain
b. * het in de kast gelegen boek
  the  in the bookcase  lain  book

Additional evidence for the claim that the verbs of location are unaccusatives comes from two kinds of data. First, the fact that the locational PP cannot be in extraposed position confirms the implicit assumption above that it acts like a complementive and not like an adverbial clause; cf. Section 2.2.1, sub III. Since complementives introduce a logical subject into the clause, the subject of the clause cannot be an argument of the verb itself, but must be a DO-subject, which implies that the verb is unaccusative.

Example 266
a. dat het boek in de kast ligt.
  that  the book  in the bookcase  lies
b. * dat het boek ligt in de kast.

Second, possessive datives may arise if a predicatively used locational PP is present, as in (267a). The fact illustrated in (267b) that the subject of a clause with a locational verb may follow the dative possessor again provides strong evidence in favor of the claim that we are dealing with a DO-subject; cf. Section 2.1.3, sub IIF.

Example 267
a. dat Jan de jongen/hem de/een pet op het hoofd zet.
  that  Jan the boy/himdat  the/a cap  on the head  puts
  'that Jan puts the/a cap on the boyʼs/his head.'
b. dat de jongen/hem de/een pet op het hoofd staat.
  that  the boy/himdat  the/a cap  on the head  stands
  'that the/a cap is on the boyʼs/his head.'

      The complementive in the change of location construction need not be a locational PP, but can also be a particle, like neer'down' in (268a). Although a PP may be present in this particle construction, it is clear that it does not act as a complementive: if the PP functions as a complementive, as in (268b), it should be left-adjacent to the verb, but if the particle neer is present, as in (268c), the PP behaves like an adverbial phrase in that it could either precede or follow the verb. Data like these are extensively discussed in Section 2.2.1, sub IV and Section P4.2.1.1.

Example 268
a. dat Marie het kleed neer legt.
  that  Marie  the cloth  down  puts
  'that Marie puts the cloth down onto the table.'
b. dat Marie het kleed <op de tafel> legt <*op de tafel>.
  that  Marie  the cloth   on the table  puts
  'that Marie puts the cloth down on the table.'
c. dat Marie het kleed <op de tafel> neer legt <op de tafel>.
  that  Marie  the cloth   on the table  down  puts
  'that Marie puts the cloth down on the table.'

      The complementive can also be an adjective; the locational meaning of the verb is retained in cases like (269a&b), but in other cases it seems to have disappeared completely.

Example 269
a. Marie zette het bier koud.
  Marie put  the beer  cold
  'Marie puts the beer in a cold place/the fridge.'
b. Jan zette de plant wat zonniger.
  Jan put  the plant  somewhat sunnier
  'Jan put the plant in a sunnier spot.'
c. Marie zette de pan klaar.
  Marie put  the pan  ready
  'Marie prepared the pan.'
d. Jan legde het kleed recht.
  Jan put  the cloth  straight
  'Jan straightened out the cloth.'

As expected on the basis of the examples in (264), the causative verbs of change of location in (269) alternate with the non-causative verbs of location in (270).

Example 270
a. Het bier staat koud.
  the beer  stands  cold
  'The beer is in a cold place/the fridge.'
b. De plant staat nu wat zonniger.
  the plant  stands  now  somewhat sunnier
  'The plant is standing in a somewhat sunnier spot.'
c. De pan staat klaar.
  the pan  stands  ready
d. Het kleed ligt recht.
  the cloth  lies  straight

Finally, it can be noted that a verb of location cannot be combined with a particle like neer: Het kleed ligt op de tafel (*neer)'The cloth is lying (*down) on the table'. This is probably due to the fact that such particles have an inherent directional meaning, which is of course not compatible with the stative locational meaning expressed by verbs of location.

[+]  2.  Other cases

The examples in (271) show that the change of state verb stellen'to put' can also enter into the resultative construction. The difference between the primeless and primed (a)-example is that the former just contains an accusative object, while the latter may also have an additional dative object. The complementive can be an AP, as in the (a)-examples, a locational PP, as in (271b), or the element teleur in (271c), which forms a fixed collocation with stellen. The examples in (271d&e) show that the complementive cannot be a particle or a past/present participle.

Example 271
a. Zijn antwoord stelt mij tevreden.
  his answer  puts  me  content
  'His answer satisfies me.'
a'. De winkeliers stellen (ons) de prijzen beschikbaar.
  the shopkeepers  put  (us)  the prizes  available
  'The shopkeepers put the prizes at our disposal.'
b. De agenten stellen de arrestant in verzekerde bewaring.
  the policemen  put  the arrested person  in custody
c. Zijn antwoord stelt mij teleur.
  his answer  puts  me  teleur
  'His answer disappoints me.'
d. * De agenten stellen de arrestant weg.
  the policemen  put  the arrested person  prt.
e. * De agenten stellen de arrestant getroffen/woedend.
  the policemen  put  the arrested.person  hit/furious

The examples in (272) show that the verb stellen can occur with the verbal particles op'up' and af'off'. However, these particles do not predicate over the accusative objects een brief'a letter' and een tijdbom'a time bomb', respectively, but are more like aspectual markers; for further discussion see Section P1.3.1.5, sub II.

Example 272
a. Peter stelt een brief op.
  Peter puts  a letter  prt.
  'Peter is writing a letter.'
b. Peter stelt een tijdbom af.
  Peter puts  a time bomb  prt.
  'Peter is setting a time bomb.'

      The change of location verb brengen'to bring' can appear in the resultative construction with a directional PP, as in (273a), or a metaphorically used locational PP, as in (273b). The verb brengen also occurs in resultative expressions like het brengen tot, in which the PP denotes a change of state and the pronoun het is non-referential; the expression as a whole is interpreted as a kind of copular verb meaning something like "to become".

Example 273
a. Els brengt het kind naar school (toe).
  Els brings  the child  to school toe
b. Els brengt het kind in de war.
  Els brings  the child  in the confusion
  'Els is confusing the child.'
c. Els heeft het tot advocaat gebracht.
  Els  has  it  to lawyer  brought
  'She became a lawyer.'
[+]  III.  Verbs with two internal arguments

Resultative constructions with ditransitive verbs or dyadic unaccusative verbs seem less common than resultative constructions with transitive or monadic verbs. We will see, however, that there is no general ban on this construction, and the fact that the construction seems relatively rare is due to the fact that many ditransitive and dyadic verbs are particle verbs or verbs prefixed by be-, ver- and ont-.

[+]  A.  Ditransitive verbs

Let us start by considering prototypical ditransitive verbs like geven'to give' and sturen'to send'. The examples in (274) show that an adjectival resultative predicate is not possible with these verbs if the direct and the indirect object are both present. The number signs indicate that these examples are possible if the adjectives kapot'broken' and ziek'ill' are interpreted as supplementives, but crucially not as complementives, that is, the examples in (274) cannot be interpreted in such a way that the objects receive the properties denoted by the adjective as the result of the events denoted by the verbs; (274a) can only be used to express that the state denoted by the adjective applied to the book while the giving event took place and (274b) that the that the plant was ill when it was sent. This suggests that it is not possible to use ditransitive verbs in resultative constructions.

Example 274
a. # Jan geeft Marie het boek kapot.
  Jan gives  Marie  the book  broken
b. # Peter stuurde haar die plant ziek.
  Peter sent  her  that plant  ill

If the indirect object is not expressed, as in (275a), the verb gevenseems to be able to take an adjectival complementive, but perhaps this construction must be considered lexically determined since it is not clear whether the adjectival predicate can really be interpreted as the result of the activity denoted by the verb; cf. the marked status of the copular construction ?? Het nieuws is vrij'the news is free'. Observe from (275b) that the goal of the event can be expressed by means of an aan-PP.

Example 275
a. De persvoorlichter geeft (*de pers) het nieuws vrij.
  the press officer  gives    the press  the news  free
  'The press officer declassified the news.'
b. De persvoorlichter geeft het nieuws vrij aan de pers.
  the press officer  gives  the news  free  to the press

Example (276) shows that the verb gevencan also enter a reflexive resultative construction if the theme is left implicit. The goal of the event can again be expressed by means of an aan-PP.

Example 276
Jan geeft zich nog eens arm (aan de kerk).
  Jan gives  refl  prt  prt  poor  to the church
'One day Jan will be poor due to his donations to the church.'

The data in (274) through (276) suggest that complementives are not possible if a (nominal) indirect object is overtly realized. This would be in line with hypotheses that claim that ditransitive constructions involve a resultative possession relation between the direct object and the indirect object; the latter is then construed as a resultative phrase indicating the location at which the former ends up as a result of the transmission event expressed by the verb. The ban on double complementives would then exclude the addition of the resultative adjective phrase kapot'broken' to double object construction in (274a) because the indirect object Marie already functions as (locational) resultative; see Section 3.3.1 and, especially, Den Dikken (1995) for an extensive discussion of proposals of that sort.
      Potential problems for the hypothesis that complementives are impossible if an indirect object is overtly realized are the more or lesss archaic/formal examples in (277), which do not involve an adjectival but an adpositional complementive, which, like all complementives, must precede the verbs in clause-final position. We should be careful here, however, given that certain locational PPs can license the presence of a possessive dative (see Section 3.3.1.6), and we may therefore not be dealing with goal arguments in (277).

Example 277
a. dat Jan Marie het boek in bewaring geeft.
  that  Jan Marie the book  in keeping  gives
  'that Jan is entrusting the book to Marie.'
b. dat Jan Marie het boek in bruikleen geeft.
  that  Jan Marie the book  on loan  gives
  'that Jan is giving the book on loan to Marie.'
c. dat Jan Marie het boek ter inzage geeft.
  that  Jan Marie the book  for inspection  gives
  'that Jan is giving Marie the book for perusal.'
d. dat Jan Marie het boek op zicht stuurt.
  that  Jan Marie the book  on approval  sends
  'that Jan is sending Marie the book on approval.'
e. dat Jan Marie het boek te leen gaf.
  that  Jan Marie the book  in loan  gave
  'that Jan loaned the book to Marie.'

Ditransitive verbs like geven and sturen can also readily be combined with verbal particles like terug'back' and weg'away'. The examples in (278) show that the indirect object can be expressed in the first but not in the latter case. Observe that the use of the prepositional indirect object also leads to a reasonably acceptable result with weggeven'to give away'.

Example 278
a. Jan geeft Marie het boek terug/*?weg.
  Jan gives  Marie the book  back/away
a'. Jan geeft het boek terug/weg (aan Marie).
  Jan gives  the book  back/away   to Marie
b. Peter stuurt Marie de plant terug/*?weg.
  Peter sends Marie the plant  back/away
b'. Peter stuurt de plant terug/*?weg aan Marie.
  Peter sends the plant  back/away  to Marie

If our earlier conclusion that verbal particles have a function similar to that of phrasal (AP/PP) complementives is correct, the examples with terugshow that ditransitive verbs can readily be combined with complementives. But this raises the question as to why phrasal complementives are so rare with ditransitive verbs. One reason might be that many ditransitive verbs are actually particle verbs, and in these cases the ban on double complementives prohibits the addition of a second resultative phrase; the small sample given as (82) in Section 2.1.3 includes examples like aan+bieden'to offer', aan+bevelen'to recommend', af+pakken'to take away', na+laten'to bequeath', op+biechten'to confess', toe+sturen'to send', toe+roepen'to call', and toe+zeggen'to promise'. Another reason might be that many ditransitive verbs are prefixed with be-, ver-and ont-; the small sample of ditransitive verbs given in (82) includes examples like be -loven'to promise', be -velen'to order', ont -houden'to withhold', ont -nemen'to take away', ver -bieden'to forbid', and ver -kopen'to sell'. Section 3.3.2, sub II, will argue that such prefixes are like verbal particles in that they function as a kind of secondary predicate; if this is indeed correct, the ban on double complementives will also exclude the addition of a resultative phrase in these cases. In short, the fact that adjectival and prepositional resultative are often excluded with ditransitive verbs may be due to the fact that a large number of ditransitive constructions contain a particle verb or a verb prefixed by be-, ver-, or ont-.

[+]  B.  nom-dat verbs

In order to enter the resultative construction, a verb must denote an activity or a process that may affect one of the arguments in the clause. Nom-dat verbs taking hebben are therefore not expected to be possible in the resultative construction; they denote a state of the referent denoted by the experiencer. In (279), the adjective goed/ slecht cannot refer to a resulting state of the subject of the clause, but can only be interpreted adverbially, that is, like English well/badly (hence the use of the number sign). Note that these adverbial phrases are more or lesss obligatory; without them, the examples are only acceptable with contrastive accent on the verb.

Example 279
a. # De jas past haar goed/slecht.
  the coat  fits  her  well/badly
b. # Die afspraak schikt me goed/slecht.
  that arrangement  suits  me well/badly
c. # Dit werk ligt me goed/slecht.
  this work  appeals  me  well/badly

It should be noted, however, that many nom-dat verbs taking hebben are prefixed by the suffixes be-and ont-, and that some take a verbal particle (this holds especially for the nom-dat verbs derived from location verbs like zitten'to sit'and staan'to stand'). If these elements can indeed be considered a kind of secondary predicates as well, this may also account for the fact that many of the verbs cannot enter the resultative construction. Some examples of nom-dat verbs of this type are: aan+staan'to please', be -hagen'to please', be -rouwen'to regret', be -tamen'to be proper to', be -vreemden'to surprise', bij+staan'to dimly recollect', ont -breken'to fail to', tegen+staan'to stand counter', tegen+zitten'to be out of luck'.
      Since the nom-dat verbs taking zijn do denote a process the expectation is that they can enter the resultative construction. This expectation is not borne out, however, but this may be due to the fact that virtually all of these verbs are prefixed by the suffixes be-and ont-, and that some take a verbal particle (this holds especially for the nom-dat verbs derived from motion verbs like lopen'to walk' or vallen'to fall'). Some examples are: af+gaan'to come easy to', be -komen'to do good to', be -vallen'to please', in+vallen'to occur to', mee+vallen'to be better/less difficult than expected', ont -gaan'to escape', ont -schieten'to slip', ont -vallen'to elude', op+vallen'to catch the eye', tegen+lopen'to go wrong', tegen+vallen'to disappoint', uit+komen'to suit well'. Some exceptions are: lukken'to succeed' and overkomen'to happen to', which is prefixed by over-. In (280), we give some examples containing an adjective. This adjective cannot be interpreted as a resultative, but only as an adverbial phrase, just as in (279).

Example 280
a. De maaltijd bekomt haar goed/slecht.
  the meal  does  her  well/badly
b. Dat boek bevalt me goed/slecht.
  that book  pleases  me  well/badly
[+]  C.  Undative verbs

The undative verbs krijgen'to get' and hebben'to have' cannot be combined with an adjectival complementive in the resultative construction. However, like the ditransitive verb geven'to give', the undative verb krijgen'to get' can be combined with PPs like te leen'in loan'/ in bruikleen'on loan' and the particles like terug. For completenesssake the (b)-examples in (281) show that these elements may also occur in the non-resultative construction with hebben'to have'.

Example 281
a. Ik geef Jan het boek terug.
  give Jan  the book  back
  'I give Jan the book back'
a'. Ik geef Jan het boek te leen.
  give Jan  the book  in loan
  'I lend Jan the book.'
b. Jan krijgt/heeft het boek terug.
  Jan gets/has  the book  back
  'Jan gets/has the book back.'
b'. Jan krijgt/heeft het boek te leen.
  Jan gets/has  the book in loan
  'Jan borrows the book.'
[+]  D.  Semantic restrictions

The previous subsections have shown that, with the exception of verbs with two internal arguments, all basic verb types in Table 6 from Section 2.1.6 can in principle occur in a resultative construction. This does not imply, however, that all verbs allow this; there seem to be semantic restrictions on the verbs that can enter into this construction. It has been suggested, for example, that the verb must be able to affect the subject of the complementive or at least be able to instigate a change of state. Since stative verbs typically lack this property, they are unable to occur in this construction; cf. the examples in (282) taken from Hoekstra et al. (1987).

Example 282
a. * Zij haatte hem dood.
  she  hated  him  dead
b. * Hij twijfelde het verhaal ongeloofwaardig.
  he  doubted  the story  unbelievable
c. * Zij vreesde haar kind nerveus.
  she  feared  her child  nervous
[+]  IV.  Summary

The previous subsections have shown that all the basic verb types in Table 6 from Section 2.1.6 can in principle occur in a resultative construction, although the verbs with two internal arguments seem more restrictive in this respect than the verbs with no or a single internal argument. It has also been shown that the properties of resultative constructions partly depend on the status of the main verb. For example, if the main verb is intransitive, an additional noun phrase must be added to the structure, whereas this is not possible with unaccusative verbs. This difference can be related to the case-assigning properties of these verbs. That the complementive may require the presence of an additional noun phrase is due to the fact that it takes an internal argument of its own. This argument of the complementive is often interpreted as an argument of the verb as well, but we have seen various cases in which such an interpretation is not possible; the internal argument of the verb seems suppressed in order to make room for the external argument of the complementive. More on the resultative construction can be found in Section A6.2.2.

References:
  • Dikken, Marcel den1995Particles: on the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructionsOxford studies in comparative syntaxNew York/OxfordOxford University Press
  • Hoekstra, Teun1988Small clause resultsLingua74101-139
  • Hoekstra, Teun2004Arguments and structure. Studies on the architecture of the sentenceBerlin/New YorkMouton de Gruyter
  • Hoekstra, Teun, Lansu, Monic & Westerduin, Marion1987Complexe verbaGLOT1061-77
  • Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka1995Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interfaceCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press
  • Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka1995Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interfaceCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press
  • Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka1995Unaccusativity at the syntax-lexical semantics interfaceCambridge, MA/LondonMIT Press
  • Toorn, M.C. van den1975Over de semantische kenmerken van <i>staan</i>, <i>liggen</i> en <i>zitten</i>De Nieuwe Taalgids68458-464
Suggestions for further reading ▼
phonology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
morphology
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
Show more ▼
syntax
  • Dutch
  • Frisian
  • Afrikaans
  • 6.2.1. The three main construction types
    [97%] Dutch > Syntax > Adjectives and Adjective Phrases > 6 Predicative use of the adjective phrase > 6.2. Complementive use of the adjective
  • 3.3.2. Accusative/PP alternations
    [97%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
  • 3.3.3. Nominative/PP alternations
    [96%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.3. Alternations of noun phrases and PPs
  • 3.2.1.1. General properties of passives
    [96%] Dutch > Syntax > Verbs and Verb Phrases > 3 Projection of verb phrases II:Verb frame alternations > 3.2. Alternations involving the external argument > 3.2.1. Passivization
  • 1.1.2.2. Complementive use
    [96%] Dutch > Syntax > Adpositions and adpositional phrases > 1 Characteristics and classification > 1.1. Characterization of the category adposition > 1.1.2. Syntactic uses of adpositional phrases
Show more ▼
cite
print
This topic is the result of an automatic conversion from Word and may therefore contain errors.
A free Open Access publication of the corresponding volumes of the Syntax of Dutch is available at OAPEN.org.